RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

section 144 are singularly absent since the appellant has replied to the notice issued by the learned AC and without prejudice the assessing officer had not issued material notice stating the basis of his additions sought to be made and justification for making additions and the materials he sought to base his reasons and miserably failed to discharge onus

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

section 144 are singularly absent since the appellant has replied to the notice issued by the learned AC and without prejudice the assessing officer had not issued material notice stating the basis of his additions sought to be made and justification for making additions and the materials he sought to base his reasons and miserably failed to discharge onus

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

section 144 are singularly absent since the appellant has replied to the notice issued by the learned AC and without prejudice the assessing officer had not issued material notice stating the basis of his additions sought to be made and justification for making additions and the materials he sought to base his reasons and miserably failed to discharge onus

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

section 144 are singularly absent since the appellant has replied to the notice issued by the learned AC and without prejudice the assessing officer had not issued material notice stating the basis of his additions sought to be made and justification for making additions and the materials he sought to base his reasons and miserably failed to discharge onus

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

section 144 are singularly absent since the appellant has replied to the notice issued by the learned AC and without prejudice the assessing officer had not issued material notice stating the basis of his additions sought to be made and justification for making additions and the materials he sought to base his reasons and miserably failed to discharge onus

POOJA PRABHAKAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

delay, was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to bona fide reasons, and thus deserved to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. 2. Without prejudice to the above, that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre [“Assessing Officer”] u/s.147 r.w.s

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

condoning the delay in filing the appeal belatedly before the Ld.CIT(A). 21. Now coming to the other issues in the case, the assessee has raised the following: 1. That no fresh tangible material was available before the AO for issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. 2. That the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. AACIT, NCC-11(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

condoning the delay in filing the appeal belatedly before the Ld.CIT(A). 21. Now coming to the other issues in the case, the assessee has raised the following: 1. That no fresh tangible material was available before the AO for issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. 2. That the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing

S 1284 THATHAIYANGARPATTY PACCS LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2,, NAMAKKAL

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3171 & 3172/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 S 1284 Thathaiyangarpatty Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Vs. Ward-2, Society Ltd., Namakkal. Karaikuruchipudur P.O., Namakkal – 637 018. Pan: Aagas 9153H

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the order of the CIT(A), we notice that the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the A.O u/s. 69A of the Act by stating that the assessee

S 1284, THATHAIYANGARPATTY PACCS LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2,, NAMAKKAL

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3171 & 3172/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 S 1284 Thathaiyangarpatty Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Vs. Ward-2, Society Ltd., Namakkal. Karaikuruchipudur P.O., Namakkal – 637 018. Pan: Aagas 9153H

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the order of the CIT(A), we notice that the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the A.O u/s. 69A of the Act by stating that the assessee

PARTHASARATHI PRABAKARAN,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-3,, VELLORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3111/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. Parthasarathi Prabakaran :- 3 -: 5. The assessee filed an additional ground before us raised the legal contention that the approval obtained for initiating proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act has not been obtained from the correct authority as per the provisions of Section 151

POOJA PRABHAKAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3046, 3047 & 3048/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Pooja Prabhakar, 17 Kingston Apartments, M G Ramachandran Road Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai - 600 090. [Pan: Bcgpp-8061-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Ito, Vs. Non-Corp Ward -15(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr. R. Venkataraman, Fca & Mr. K. Vishwa Padmanabhan, Fca. : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : : 16.12.2025 : 01.01.2026 These Three Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 25.08.2025, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”). The Impugned Orders Arise Out Of The Assessments Framed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao”) U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Pertaining To Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 :-2-:

delay, was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to bona fide reasons, and thus deserved to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. 2. Without prejudice to the above, that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre [“Assessing Officer”] u/s.147 r.w.s

POOJA PRABHAKAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI , CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3046, 3047 & 3048/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Pooja Prabhakar, 17 Kingston Apartments, M G Ramachandran Road Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai - 600 090. [Pan: Bcgpp-8061-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By Ito, Vs. Non-Corp Ward -15(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr. R. Venkataraman, Fca & Mr. K. Vishwa Padmanabhan, Fca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Three Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 25.08.2025, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”). The Impugned Orders Arise Out Of The Assessments Framed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao”) U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Pertaining To Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 :-2-:

delay, was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to bona fide reasons, and thus deserved to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. 2. Without prejudice to the above, that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre [“Assessing Officer”] u/s.147 r.w.s

JESUDASON BIJI ,CHENNAI vs. OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER INT. TAXN WARD1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

condonation of delay in filing the original return u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act and during the process of examining, the correctness of the claim to facilitate the report by the AO, it came to light that while the claim of deduction u/s.54EC was found to be in order, the claim of deduction u/s.54F to the tune of ITA No.567

MAHASAKTHI BIO ENERCON PVT. LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:467/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mahasakthi Bio Enercon Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Vs. Income Tax, No.64, Dr. Nanjappa Road, Central Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 018. Coimbatore. [Pan:Aabci-0022-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T.

condone delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Indian made foreign Liquor. The assessment u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the Act) was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SMT. SURUMY MAMMOTTY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2962 & 2963/Chny/16 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09

condone the delay and admit the appeals. 3. Shri Sailendra Mamidi, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that there was a search in the premises of one Shri Mammotty, father of the assessee. The assessee is engaged in the profession of creative designing. During the course of search operation, according to the Ld. D.R., some material was found. On that basis

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SMT. SURUMY MAMMOTTY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2962 & 2963/Chny/16 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09

condone the delay and admit the appeals. 3. Shri Sailendra Mamidi, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that there was a search in the premises of one Shri Mammotty, father of the assessee. The assessee is engaged in the profession of creative designing. During the course of search operation, according to the Ld. D.R., some material was found. On that basis

YUGENDIRAN VISHNUPRIYA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3241 &3242/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-18) Yugendiran Vishnupriya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Door No.284/3, International Tax, Thiruveni Colony, Bellyarea, Ward 2(2) Anna Nagar, Chennai-600040 Chennai. [Pan: Apzpv 9903M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

condone the delay and treat the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’ and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18: Grounds of appeal for assessment year 2016-2017 ‘’1. The order of the Dispute Resolution Panel against the draft assessment order by the Id. AO is contrary